Talk:US House of Representatives holds two Cabinet officers in criminal contempt of Congress

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Layout[edit]

1) I'd suggest to move the "The House Oversight and Reform Committee had issued subpoenas for documents relating to the administrations decisions, attempting to discern the true reason for the addition of the citizenship question. Barr and Ross, however, refused to hand over the documents. Minutes before the Oversight Committee voted to refer them to the full House to be held in contempt, Trump formally asserted executive privilege over the documents. " paragraph closer to the top as it might seem more current than the second paragraph.

2) There is a mention of "Trump formally asserted executive privilege over the documents". Is this the reason why "the Trump administration's Department of Justice is not expected to prosecute Barr or Ross for their defiance of Congress" or there is another reason?

3) In the paragraph mentioned in (1), dates and times are missing. It would be nice to specify the date for each event (or just one date, if they occurred on the same day).

4) It is not clear how did the voting outcome become known to Wikinews. If a reporter from Wikinews has attended the Parliament, this should be specified. Or if the Parliament published the voting outcome, this should be specified instead, too. (Reporting "XYZ happened internally" without any reference to how Wikinews started knowing about it, can be terribly confusing. The reader ought to know this from the article, without reading the sources.)

5) I'd suggest to add more context, such as what "hold in contempt" means, towards the end of the story.

--Gryllida (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gryllida: done all (I think) --DannyS712 (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Headline[edit]

I personally find the headline "US House of Representatives holds Barr, Ross in contempt" a bit confusing. It is not clear why they're in contempt, or who they are. If a volunteer who is closely familiar with this topic wishes to remedy this without making the headline two times as long, this would be greatly appreciated. :)

--Gryllida (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a better title would be, but if you or anyone else wants to move this I don't object --DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: How about: US House of Representatives holds Barr and puts Ross in criminal contempt --Don't call 911 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
But they put both of them in contempt? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I find that one confusing.

One might suffix to the current headline "for withholding documents", and leave for the article to explain who these two people are. --Pi zero (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: opss! Should hav read 1st. How about: US House of Representatives holds Barr and Ross in criminal contempt or Barr and Ross under contempt for withholding documents, US house voted or some variation --Don't call 911 (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Yikes! There once was a time when I'd know the names of top cabinet members. I don't know if it is because they change like a merry-go-round or if I am getting old, but perhaps we should refer to them in the title by their office. "Barr, Ross" sounds like a law firm. --SVTCobra 02:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I wondered about that too, but "Atourney General, Commerce Secretary" doesn't feel explanatory to me, either. There's always "two members of president's cabinet", but... at that point I thought maybe "Barr, Ross" would be enough information for the headline after all. --Pi zero (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, so, maybe put them in front. As in "AG and Commerce Secretary held in contempt by Congress" Or House if necessary.--SVTCobra 02:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
House; the Senate is a very different environment atm. Putting them in front requires passive voice, though that isn't disqualifying, merely less-than-ideal. -Pi zero (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps U.S. House holds two Cabinet secretaries in criminal contempt of Congress? —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 04:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the AG, though a cabinet member, is considered a cabinet secretary. --Pi zero (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps then U.S. House holds two Cabinet officers in criminal contempt of Congressmikemoral (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4491129 [Not ready][edit]

Preliminary thoughts on second submission[edit]

Don't know what may be possible in actual re-review, though I also have no idea whether I'll be able to re-review it this evening (my time; it's evening here now); but here are the two items I have my eye on atm.

  • The expectation in the lede still wants to be either eliminated, or transmuted, or attributed. I'd expect to consult the sources closely on this point before proceeding.
  • In the fourth paragraph, I'm dubious, but reserving judgment pending source-check, of the phrase "which so far has supported his actions."

--Pi zero (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: do you think you'll get a chance to review this? I don't want it to go stale... thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm worried about pretty much everything on the queue atm. And can't possibly get to all of it. We'll see. --Pi zero (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pi zero: (edit conflict) okay, well I addressed your points above. I have:
  1. Made the phrasing more general, and added a direct source for it (and if a second source is desired, there is one in the html comment, but I didn't want to overload the citations)
  2. Rephrased it to be that the administration has so far supported his actions, which is more directly addressed in the sources.
Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Census question quote[edit]

Per Special:Diff/4491877: sources to be added for it: New York Times, BBC. Not adding now because under review -> edit conflicts. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4491895 [Passed][edit]

Title[edit]

Shouldn’t the title mention that this is over the citizenship question? It otherwise appears to be about the Russia issue. SelfieCity (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, we don't like to change headlines after publication without a really good reason (because it can create duplicate entries in some news feeds). Also, there's the matter of not changing the meaning more than 24 hours after publication. However, with all that said, it's in-bounds to discuss what the article should have been called, because we can apply lessons learned to future articles. It can be quite challenging to fit in enough to satisfy the style guide's dictum about headlines, "Tell the most important and unique thing." This headline is already not short. It's true a reference to the nature of the contempt would be useful. Have you a suggestion of how to fit it in? --Pi zero (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
That’s totally reasonable. I would say that we should stick to the current for now, for that reason. Just keep the idea in mind for the future, that’s my thought. SelfieCity (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay. It's a fair point. --Pi zero (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - PDF[edit]

{{edit protected}} Please tag the second external link (the lawsuit) as having medium = PDF. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Pi zero (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)